Primer: Military Aid to Ukraine
Hello everyone! For our first debate of the school year, Northwestern’s Political Union is discussing a pressing topic in world news—the United States’ involvement in the war in Ukraine. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine taking place over a year and a half ago and no obvious end in sight to the conflict, major figures like GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy are calling for the US to end the war in Ukraine and stop American involvement. Others are staunchly opposed to this. With this hotly contested issue in mind, NU’s Political Union will debate the following resolution.
Resolved: The US should continue to provide military aid to Ukraine.
Before fully delving into the primer, it is necessary to reaffirm Political Union’s mission to be a safe space for conversation on campus. This topic is both pressing in our political sphere and also very personal for many. Sensitivity during our debate for this issue is essential. With this reminder in mind, please enjoy the following primer.
The argument for the pro side simply boils down to the belief that in order to support our partner Ukraine in its war, it is essential to continue to provide military aid. The state department asserts that the US should continue to prioritize support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. Through both equipment and financial aid, the US is giving Ukraine the chance to defend itself against its more powerful aggressor. Stopping military aid to Ukraine could mean that the US would allow Russia to win the war. The Center for American Progress claims that the defeat of Ukraine would be harmful to the global status of democracy. Not only would the democratic state of Ukraine be controlled by non-democratic Russia, but a Russian win could embolden China in its desire to forcefully take control over Taiwan. By continuing its support for Ukraine, the US would allow this nation to survive the war, enshrining the values of democracy across the globe. Finally, support for this side of the resolution is bipartisan. Both Senators Schumer and McConnell have stated that the US’s military aid to Ukraine is good and necessary. Considering all of this, the arguments for the pro side seem convincing.
The con side, however, also has many convincing arguments to make. Public opinion on this issue is beginning to waiver, not being as strong as the past. According to a Brookings Institute poll, 46% of Americans believe that the US’s support for Ukraine should, eventually, expire. Additionally, the amount of support that people are willing to give to Ukraine is decreasing as time goes on. With public opinion for the US giving military aid to Ukraine deteriorating, stopping that aid to Ukraine seems logical. One potential cause for this declining support is argued by Representative Michael Waltz. In his opinion piece, he argued that the plan for the US’s military aid in Ukraine is not clear to the public. How is this aid going to be used in the war? What parameters are going to be met in order for the aid to no longer be necessary? Due to the lack of public information, it can feel as if the US is currently writing blank checks to Ukraine with no end in sight, something that could harm the US if it were to continue for too long. Finally, opponents to continuing military aid to Ukraine say that domestic issues are being neglected because of our support for Ukraine. People like Speaker McCarthy and Vivek Ramaswamy believe that our Southern border with Mexico is being neglected and that the funds for Ukraine could be redirected to help fight this issue. By halting the military aid for Ukraine, the con side argues that underfunded domestic issues could be better confronted.
Please join us for our debate in Scott Hall 201 on September 25th, 7pm!
"Berlin protests against Ukraine War" by lewinb is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.